New model of Peer Review (The limitations of science)
by xeno6696 
, Sonoran Desert, Saturday, August 14, 2010, 15:03 (5002 days ago)
This one's for David:-http://cordis.europa.eu/ictresults/index.cfm?section=news&tpl=article&BrowsingType=Features&ID=91404-Man, can I predict the future or what????
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
New model of Peer Review
by David Turell , Saturday, August 14, 2010, 17:18 (5002 days ago) @ xeno6696
This one's for David: > > http://cordis.europa.eu/ictresults/index.cfm?section=news&tpl=article&BrowsingT... > Man, can I predict the future or what????-Yes, you can. What is needed is many arXiv's, not blogs in every direction, but an arXiv for each area of research. Information must be centralized in some way. Diffuse blogs will hide information, because the search load is just too big. Great article.
New model of Peer Review
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, August 16, 2010, 01:03 (5001 days ago) @ David Turell
David,-The problem as I see it, is that you have two extremes; you have the current model, where experts control submissions to journals (the model you hate). This is a highly centralized model; one that seems almost stifling to some people. -The model suggested by this paper, is the democratic model that the www uses, and the one that the computational bio group at UNO has been building for biochem. -The difference about these... "blogs" as they were, is that credentialed people are the target audience. What you say makes sense if the goal is to target the layman, but as far as I'm concerned, peer review isn't for layman--it's for the professionals. -If you watch wikipedia articles, their approach to information purity is a pretty good one in the end; typically only experts write articles. Other people read and discussions evolve over how the article is to be "finished." This is EXACTLY what science needs... a centralized server (wikipedia) that allows debate and evolving views.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
New model of Peer Review
by David Turell , Monday, August 16, 2010, 02:34 (5000 days ago) @ xeno6696
> This is EXACTLY what science needs... a centralized server (wikipedia) that allows debate and evolving views.-I agree with you but arXiv is delivered for credentialed folks and is a centralized resource. I used it in my book. A series of arXiv's with discussion forum areas for each aspect of science would do the same thing. One Wikipedia for prepublication papers would be ponderous.
New model of Peer Review
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, August 17, 2010, 01:43 (5000 days ago) @ David Turell
> > This is EXACTLY what science needs... a centralized server (wikipedia) that allows debate and evolving views. > > I agree with you but arXiv is delivered for credentialed folks and is a centralized resource. I used it in my book. A series of arXiv's with discussion forum areas for each aspect of science would do the same thing. One Wikipedia for prepublication papers would be ponderous.-I'm confused... wasn't part of your issue with the current system that "credentialed" people are blocking access via PR?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
New model of Peer Review
by David Turell , Tuesday, August 17, 2010, 14:48 (4999 days ago) @ xeno6696
> > > This is EXACTLY what science needs... a centralized server (wikipedia) that allows debate and evolving views. > > > > I agree with you but arXiv is delivered for credentialed folks and is a centralized resource. I used it in my book. A series of arXiv's with discussion forum areas for each aspect of science would do the same thing. One Wikipedia for prepublication papers would be ponderous. > > I'm confused... wasn't part of your issue with the current system that "credentialed" people are blocking access via PR?-arXiv is open to anyone with the proper credentials in physical science to present pre-publication work. To my knowledge 'open' means open to submit. No PR. I guess my comment above was confusing.
New model of Peer Review
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Saturday, August 28, 2010, 00:21 (4989 days ago) @ xeno6696
This discussion touches on the issue of peer review, as well as much else that we tend to discuss in this forum. -http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/the-science-studio/panel-with-lord-martin-rees-patricia-smith-churchland-and-ac-grayling-I have doubts about the attitude of Martin Rees to issues like GM foods and Ecological dangers, but on the other hand I found A. C. Grayling's historical perspectives most helpful.
--
GPJ